3 ms·
I'm not criticizing the conclusion, it's the argument I'm after. The fact that the tracks are listed on a website doesn't anymore inform your right to replicat
by mseebach 13y ago
I'm not criticizing the conclusion, it's the argument I'm after.
The fact that the tracks are listed on a website doesn't anymore inform your right to replicated it than the fact that words are arranged into an article on a website does it. Copying the latter is clearly not any more or less legal because it's on the web (as opposed to printed), so why would that argument apply to listing of tracks?
- antihero 13y agoOk, so say you see the tracklist on that site, then listen to the tracks in that order. Is that copyright infringement?
- mseebach 13y agoNo, just like reading an article isn't. Look, I'm being pedantic. We don't appear to have any real difference of opinion. But the fact that something is published on a website doesn't give you any more copy-rights than if it was published in any other way (say, on the sleeve on a CD you bought). I don't see how that is a controversial observation.